Anyone played around with the new DnD? I've got the playtest kit, but no one to play with.. to me it kind seems like the same old same old, more akin to 3rd edition tho (so people come back to playing it :P)... but i'd love to hear what people think who actually like DnD, I haven't been a fan since I discovered well.. pretty much any other rping system (right now i'm kinda stuck on Fate, a fudge based game)

xoxos

06-19-2012, 01:44 PM

i haven't played since 2nd ed. but intend to start again sometime, so i've been checking it out as well. to me it doesn't seem that far from the general d20 (which i guess is derived from 3rd ed.)

i like a lot of the simplification.. i think the complexity of rules (eg. the dizzying array of polearms with the "vs. armor class" table..) was part of the intrigue but detracts from roleplaying. i remember tons of rpgs in the mid-late 80s with very similar systems.. for me, the idea of rpg has kinda transcended form a commercial product to an ideathat doesn't require a product.

i'm guessing it's basically like any other business.. you need something new to flog every now and then to keep revenue rolling in, make everyone update... (then buy the old ones as well for compatability and reference..)

i'm guessing when i get there it's more likely to be a d20 derivative with maybe a couple dozen hastily written pages with a very generalised magic system (eg. a single 'offensive' category instead of fire, ice, whatever.. ranges like japanese "kore sore dore" by me, by you, over there..)

loogie

06-19-2012, 02:01 PM

yeah, i found dnd to be a numbers game, and unfortunately because of that things get very unbalanced, and players generally seem to always try to play to the numbers and not roleplay. it's easy to learn and understand, which is why i think it's a good starter rpg, but when it comes down to it, i find most people are never 100% when it comes to roleplaying, so any way the game can help out with how actions are resolved or combat happens it'd a benefit to keeping things feel more novel-like instead of math... for instance, i went from DnD to Iron Crown Enterprises works, Harp, Rolemaster, Middle Earth RolePlaying and having a combat result of "wind knocked out of you" vs "2 hits" just seemed more useful to me...

I've progressed to Fate, which is FUDGE based... and goes a lot further, basically removing much of the structure of attributes/skills/magic and replaces them with a single template... I think its a very interesting concept, and would work well for a GM like me...

That being said, any system can be amazing with the right GM, but I find there are other systems out there that are usually better suited to making us mediocre GM's a bit better than DnD has ever been.

(GM = DM for you DnDers)

Larb

06-19-2012, 02:07 PM

D&D Next is more like 3e than 4e. I think they are trying to win back customers they lost when 4e came out because it was a very divisive edition. I'm not sure it is a good idea though and I think it might end up not pleasing anyone, especially all the new players that came in when 4e was released or those who prefer that system. Afterall the people who liked 3e are either still playing it or are playing pathfinder.

But I only really play L5R and Shadowrun lately anyway. =P

loogie

06-19-2012, 02:15 PM

i smell a shadowrun kickstarter supporter :P

Klaus van der Kroft

06-19-2012, 02:22 PM

I had the chance to run a D&D Next playtest last friday with five players. I used an adapted version of the Caves of Chaos module providided (I threw in some stuff from Tomb of Horrors, but toned down to fit the game and power level), and we had a lot of fun.

The game felt quite good (I've played and DMed every version of D&D, though AD&D 2e and Pathfinder are my favourites) and fluid; I loved the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, which makes awarding bonuses/penalties tremendously easy. Going back to the ability scores being the cornerstone of the character felt good, though since we still don't know exactly how will skills work, that's still mostly mysterious ground. I enjoyed the changes to the combat system (particularly the way movement and actions are handled), and being a gridless fan, I appreciated the nod to those of us who don't like to play with miniatures.

In general, I got a heavy AD/D+3.5 vibe that, personally, I love, but that I can imagine could cause issues with those who prefer 4e's way of doing things. The system felt light, flexible, and D&D. Still a lot more to see, but so far I'm happy.

loogie

06-19-2012, 02:50 PM

good good, i mean DnD has always been a cornerstone for rpers so i do like to see them succeed... and well it was crappy to hear how poorly 4th ed went over, i figured they'd definitely be taking a step back after that, especially since it seems they destroyed a good part of their franchises to do so (stupid stupid stupid)... forgotten realms will never be the same, and while its a cool concept to be able to look back on... not sure it was a good step in any sense...

but, i feel better to know they're moving back to more familiar, more widely accepted ground.

Lukc

06-19-2012, 03:58 PM

Hey there loogie and all,

I've also got the playtest pack, but unfortunately no group to try it with ... I liked what I saw, a lot. Like Klaus I found the advantage/disadvantage thing pretty cool and a great idea (ripped for my BASS system) ... in general, I've found a lot of the ideas good and I also enjoy the gridless thing.

On the other hand, the system of house-ruled-to-death DnD I now run as a DM depends on me knowing that the game is about fun and running cool games, while not paying mind to things like grids and other nonsense. In that sense, DnD 5E isn't going to be a make-or-break product for me - I'll keep calling the games I run D&D derivative, but ... and it's a big but ... my games no longer have classes or levelling, so I'm pretty far from what D&D was originally all about*.

*and they're fun as feck.

heffnerc1

06-19-2012, 08:38 PM

my games no longer have classes or levelling, so I'm pretty far from what D&D was originally all about

Speaking as a game designer whose current game also features no classes (or alignments), how do your players increase their offensive/defensive features or hit points without leveling? That sounds really interesting.

loogie

06-20-2012, 10:05 AM

I've always tried to set up a "you get good at what you use" concept for my games as well, genrally levelless, and mainly classless... it's one of the things i like about Fate, is that you can have a class, or not, because really a class is just like a skill, which is just like an attribute... in the end completing tasks is all about deciding how you can use your current knowledge to complete them... so in the end "A knight of the round table" would be useful as a combat skill, probably religious skill, heck even possibly a public speaking skill, it all depends on how creative you can get with it.. which also generally makes the story even better. same goes with things like attributes, having your character be "strong" can help in any number of ways... and not putting a whole numerical term to it makes sense to me...

i tend to like dnd house-to-rule systems like that, but when it comes down to it they tend to take on their own traits and become less of a dnd system, more of a system that uses their dice, and play in their world.